Verizon: net neutrality violates our free speech rights

Verizon pressed its argument against the Federal Communications Commission's new network neutrality rules on Monday; filing a legal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The company argued the FCC's rules not only exceeded the agency's regulatory authority, but also violated network owners' constitutional rights. Specifically, Verizon believes that the FCC is threatening its First Amendment right to freedom of speech and its property rights under the Fifth Amendment.

"The Commission points to a hodgepodge of provisions to support its claim of 'broad authority,'" Verizon writes. However, the firm says, the FCC "does not and could not suggest that any of these provisions expressly authorizes these rules." Indeed, Verizon notes, "since 2006, at least 11 pieces of 'net neutrality' legislation were introduced and debated in Congress. None were enacted."

Editorial discretion

But Verizon believes that even if Congress had authorized network neutrality regulations, those regulations would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. "Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech," Verizon writes.

Verizon believes that it's entitled to the same kind of control over the content that flows through its network as newspaper editors exercise over what appears in their papers. That includes the right to prioritize its own content, or those of its partners, over other Internet traffic.

"Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising," Verizon writes. "The FCC’s concern that broadband providers will differentiate among various content presumes that they will exercise editorial discretion."

Verizon points to a 1994 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that regulations requiring cable television providers to carry broadcast television channels triggered First Amendment scrutiny. By the same token, Verizon says, network neutrality rules trigger First Amendment concerns by restricting broadband providers' rights to allocate more bandwidth to some content than to others.

Electronic invasion

That's not all. Verizon also believes the FCC's rules violate the Fifth Amendment's protections for private property rights. Verizon argues that the rules amount to "government compulsion to turn over [network owners'] private property for use by others without compensation."

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property without compensation. According to Verizon, network neutrality rules are "the equivalent of a permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation."

Verizon also notes "providers have invested billions in broadband infrastructure on the understanding that they can manage access to network facilities and use those facilities to offer the products that their customers want." By frustrating that expectation, Verizon argues, the FCC has effectively engaged in a "regulatory taking" of broadband providers' property.

These arguments suggest that Verizon is digging in its heels against the regulation of its network. If the courts rule that the FCC has exceeded its authority under telecommunications laws, Congress could respond by changing the law to explicitly authorize network neutrality regulations. But if the courts accept Verizon's constitutional arguments, then imposing network neutrality rules on the nation's broadband carriers could require a constitutional amendment.

Still, the courts haven't always been sympathetic to this type of argument. After it ruled that must-carry rules raise First Amendment issues in 1994, the Supreme Court sent the case back down to the lower courts for further consideration of the case. The lower courts ultimately decided that the regulations passed muster under the First Amendment. That ruling was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1997.

All corporate charters include two parties, the entity requesting incorporation and the granting authority representing all of society. *All* corporations operate at the sufferance of society, and only society can authorize this charter. The document says "We, the people...", not "We, the limited liability S corp..."

Verizon needs to pay back all of us for the public land used for its facilities before it can squawk about easements and other crap.

Internet access needs to become as a public utility, completely divorced from content.

Oh I see, private ventures exist only because the state allows them to. Take your authoritarian bullshit and shove it up your ass.

At least be honest and replace your "needs to" with "enforce at government gunpoint", because that's exactly what it is.

You dont know what you are talking about.

its the people of the state that say weather private ventures can operate. that's us. you and me. so Im not sure where you are getting your whole authoritarian argument from but it has no place in this discussion. private operations exists because we say they do or at least that is how it should run. When companies run outside the will of the people you run into situations where they are doing unethical things that go against the will of society or communities. IF a community doesn't want something in there town a company shouldn't be able to get around that process simply because its a private entity. What I am saying is the rights of people are more fundamental then the rights of the organization because we are real human beings and corporations LLCs and what ever are not. they are creations of people and shouldn't have rights as people.

Flat-out wrong. Look up the concept of Commercial Speech. Furthermore, Anonymous Speech is not something that's done via a corporation, for the simple reason that a corporation is not anonymous. Finally, you are missing a very important point: speech done on behalf of a corporation has protections built in that speech done on behalf of yourself - or even a political group - doesn't have: namely, that all judgments based on that speech go against the corporation and its assets, not against yourself.

That means that conflating your own speech with that of the corporation leads to the very dangerous situation that an entity designed to act as a perfect sociopath is given the same social rights, weights and privileges as an individual. If that doesn't scare the bejeesus out of you means that you haven't met a sociopath, or know how they operate.

Let me know when the sociopathic, mass-murdering US federal government is muzzled, then I will listen to your BS about how the first amendment isn't universal.

The federal government as it is right now is created by the corporations to do there will. the mass murdering will end when its back in the hands of the people. I dont get how so many people dont see the government for what it is. Government is run by private entities, if you dont see that you are living in a dream world.

You can operate private ventures without the state as much as you want. However, there are no companies without the government. They are a legal fiction created by statute for the purposes of commerce. The closest you could come without *government intervention* is a morass of contracts between hundreds of individuals.

Thank you. Since corporations exist only on paper, the state cannot restrict the free speech rights of any individuals in the group without violating the rights of the individual.

Exactly. So it's perfectly reasonable to restrict the free-speech rights of a corporation.

Quote:

It's the fact that there is no voluntaryism in government and all government action is backed by the threat of violence. So when all the authoritarians in this thread say "society needs to do this" or "society should have that", it's nothing more than a euphemism for using government violence to achieve their ideological goals.

In the 20's, Ludwig von Mises in wrote in "Socialism" about how "society" or "social" was already nothing more than a weasel word used by leftist academics to hide their authoritarian tendencies, little has changed in 90 years.

By the way, it's not Verizon's fault the government is stupid enough to give them free land instead of making them buy it like everyone else.

They could easily say the land was leased on the condition that a proper network be built. If it wasn't, then the land would have to be returned with rent. Further, abusing your market position against federal law could involve forfeiture of assets.

And if you really believe the modern state has done anything for anyone outside the ruling class, you're nuts.

I don't agree. I can easily name one thing the modern state has done for people outside of the ruling class. Abolishing slavery.

Right, because without the state, people have no ethics and will continue to keep slaves.

Strawman deflection. The state banning slaves certainly didn't benefit the ruling class, so that argument certainly counters your claim that the state hasn't ever done anything for anyone outside the ruling class.

Then there's the Equal Rights Amendment - the "ruling class," historically, was by men, and for men. Allowing women to vote conferred no benefit to said "ruling class."

Quote:

Only one western nation, the US, can partially claim that the state was responsible for abolishing slavery, and even that is a dubious argument since the civil war was fought over numerous issues. Other western nations abolished slavery without warfare through generous agreement, the state merely codified the consensus.

While it's true that the Civil War was fought over numerous issues, your entire argument was that the state works only for the benefit of the ruling class. There are so many examples to counter that, it'd take hours to list and explain even a good selection of them.

You need to come up with real responses, instead of relying on tired strawmen. Counter the actual argument being presented, instead of constructing some ad hoc comparison, and tearing the comparison down.

You can operate private ventures without the state as much as you want. However, there are no companies without the government. They are a legal fiction created by statute for the purposes of commerce. The closest you could come without *government intervention* is a morass of contracts between hundreds of individuals.

Thank you. Since corporations exist only on paper, the state cannot restrict the free speech rights of any individuals in the group without violating the rights of the individual.

Plasmoid wrote:

What's the deal with government gunpoint malarkey? Are you referring to Verizon paying back the owners of land for incredibly sweet-heart deals or are you trying to say that Internet access should not be treated as a utility? It's such an odd-phrase.

It's the fact that there is no voluntaryism in government and all government action is backed by the threat of violence. So when all the authoritarians in this thread say "society needs to do this" or "society should have that", it's nothing more than a euphemism for using government violence to achieve their ideological goals.

In the 20's, Ludwig von Mises in wrote in "Socialism" about how "society" or "social" was already nothing more than a weasel word used by leftist academics to hide their authoritarian tendencies, little has changed in 90 years.

By the way, it's not Verizon's fault the government is stupid enough to give them free land instead of making them buy it like everyone else.

Dude are you brain washed or something? what the fuck are you talking about? Society is us! its the people that make the country what it is. Somebody tell me this guy isnt serious? We are all connected on some level whether you see it or not. You can go around making up stuff to suit your needs there has to be a system where if you do something it doesnt effect the rights of another. right now they way corporations are run they are causing great suffering on regular people like myself and others. Im sorry but that cant happen. If you want to do something do it but not at the expense of another.

"Verizon believes that it's entitled to the same kind of control over the content that flows through its network as newspaper editors exercise over what appears in their papers. That includes the right to prioritize its own content, or those of its partners, over other Internet traffic."lol/WUT?!?

Free speech rights are meant for people, not corporations. Pretty much a no-brainier since you can attached speech to a person where with corporations the people that run it can shield themselves from liability of the entities actions.

This is flatly incorrect. Anonymous speech is protected under the 1st amendment. The corporation is simply an organization which the individuals have grouped under. Speech via the corporation is protected the same as speech as an individual would be.

Flat-out wrong. Look up the concept of Commercial Speech. Furthermore, Anonymous Speech is not something that's done via a corporation, for the simple reason that a corporation is not anonymous. Finally, you are missing a very important point: speech done on behalf of a corporation has protections built in that speech done on behalf of yourself - or even a political group - doesn't have: namely, that all judgments based on that speech go against the corporation and its assets, not against yourself.

That means that conflating your own speech with that of the corporation leads to the very dangerous situation that an entity designed to act as a perfect sociopath is given the same social rights, weights and privileges as an individual. If that doesn't scare the bejeesus out of you means that you haven't met a sociopath, or know how they operate.

By that logic for the newspaper delivery guy is entitled to rip out a few pages of my newspaper in his editorial discretion? Or he or she can deliver some (his own or who ever pays him for this act) advertisement timely and the rest when the deal advertised is expired?

I agree with Verzion. It's Verizon's network, their property, they should set the rules. It's government regulation that allowed these monopolies to form. The answer isn't more regulation, it's more competition that would allow someone to choose a different ISP should Verizon implement restrictive polices.

I see that you're promoting a free market philosophy, for this to be a valid perspective, both sides must have the benefits of a free market, correct?

With that said, if i'm a contracted verizon user, do you feel I should have the ability to leave the service as a result (without an expensive early termination fee)? It's certainly not a part of the contract that I signed that I allow verizon to selectively limit the bandwidth from different sources. I don't understand how competition can apply fairly in what is a market where the consumer does not have the ability to freely select their provider.

Strawman deflection. The state banning slaves certainly didn't benefit the ruling class, so that argument certainly counters your claim that the state hasn't ever done anything for anyone outside the ruling class.

Not a strawman, because I'm flat out saying government did not compel most western nations to give up on slavery, the people did it on their own then the law was passed afterwards. Like I said, the US was an anomaly.

And of course abolishing slavery benefited the ruling class in the US. Union victory in the civil war was mainly fought to solidify the Northern hegemony, abolishing slavery put the southern economy back so far they wouldn't recover for the next 120 years.

Quote:

While it's true that the Civil War was fought over numerous issues, your entire argument was that the state works only for the benefit of the ruling class. There are so many examples to counter that, it'd take hours to list and explain even a good selection of them.

Please, go ahead. You'd be a fool to think any state action has ever occurred purely for the benefit of the plebs, as opposed to being a coldly calculated action to benefit the ruling class with a silver lining for *some* plebs, *some* of the time.

Quote:

You need to come up with real responses, instead of relying on tired strawmen. Counter the actual argument being presented, instead of constructing some ad hoc comparison, and tearing the comparison down.

Nice sneer about anything you disagree with being "strawmen". I'm actually taking time to explain why the ruling class benefited most from the civil war, you're just spewing crap about how you don't have the time to come up with responses.

You want a real strawman, scroll up a bit and read the post by some other dumbass about how "being born in the wrong family" in Renaissance city-states means you're fucked for life and therefore my statement about commerce existing without government must be wrong. Shouldn't even have responded to such blatant idiocy, but then there were another 10 posts agreeing with it.

Strawman deflection. The state banning slaves certainly didn't benefit the ruling class, so that argument certainly counters your claim that the state hasn't ever done anything for anyone outside the ruling class.

Not a strawman, because I'm flat out saying government did not compel most western nations to give up on slavery, the people did it on their own then the law was passed afterwards. Like I said, the US was an anomaly.

You said: "And if you really believe the modern state has done anything for anyone outside the ruling class, you're nuts."I replied "Abolishing slavery"I proved you wrong, so then you put conditions on your statement after the fact in an attempt to not look like you were talking out your ass.

Slavery was abolished by parliament in Great Britain so the U.S. was not an "anomaly". All the people there apparently didn't do it "on their own" as you say. If they had, they wouldn't have been paid reparations for the loss of their slaves.

While it's true that the Civil War was fought over numerous issues, your entire argument was that the state works only for the benefit of the ruling class. There are so many examples to counter that, it'd take hours to list and explain even a good selection of them.

Please, go ahead. You'd be a fool to think any state action has ever occurred purely for the benefit of the plebs, as opposed to being a coldly calculated action to benefit the ruling class with a silver lining for *some* plebs, *some* of the time.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said, before, that the government only acted to benefit the ruling class. FFS, have some consistency. Although, given your posting history, I suspect that's asking too much.

Dude are you brain washed or something? what the fuck are you talking about? Society is us!

trinsic wrote:

its the people of the state that say weather private ventures can operate. that's us. you and me

Verizon exists because "we" (whomever that is) say they can. The jamba juice I went to yesterday exists because "we" say it can. Intel (where I work) exists only because "we" say they can make CPU's.

Believe it or not, other peoples can run a business without your assent.

Done with you since you're obviously totally detached from reality.

You might want to look at your own detachment from reality. Corporations need charters to exist. Small business need business licensees and permits to exist in the communities they operate in. There is a reason for that. The people can come together to approve or reject if they want that company to operate in there community. What world do you live on?

Dude are you brain washed or something? what the fuck are you talking about? Society is us!

trinsic wrote:

its the people of the state that say weather private ventures can operate. that's us. you and me

Verizon exists because "we" (whomever that is) say they can. The jamba juice I went to yesterday exists because "we" say it can. Intel (where I work) exists only because "we" say they can make CPU's.

Believe it or not, other peoples can run a business without your assent.

Done with you since you're obviously totally detached from reality.

You might want to look at your own detachment from reality. Corporations need charters to exist. Small business need business licensees and permits to exist in the communities they operate in. There is a reason for that. The people can come together to approve or reject if they want that company to operate in there community. What world do you live on?

There's no reason for such regulations to exist other than legalized plunder, i.e. giving a legal method for the state to extract wealth from private enterprise to distribute to rent seekers.

In any case, no business license or corporate charter says anything about the "public good" (in itself a euphemism for state theft), benefit of "society" (again, whatever the fuck that is), and all that other garbage reasons quoted by the authoritarian nerds in this thread.

I'm as much a fan of internet porn as anyone, but I am tired of watching this troll perform wild, sloppy cunnilingus on the corpse of Ayn Rand.

Sensible people have already agreed that a corporation should exist at the mercy of the public. In return for the services they provide the public, corporations are afforded many considerations. Some of them are trying to grab benefits from the public disproportionate with the services they provide to us, and have purchased several legislators to reinforce their position.

They would be wise to exercise some caution with this sort of behavior, as the pendulum tends to swing back the other way eventually.

LOL I see, only "sensible" people believe the private economy exists at the mercy of the state. So only doctrinaire statists are "sensible". That's exactly the kind of intellectual "rigor" from the Marxists and their "inevitability of socialism" bullshit. No need to argue, that'd be fighting history.

The reason liberty is dead today is because ethically challenged jerkoffs like you worship the state and fail to see they fuck you in the ass at every turn. The modern state kills and steals as it sees fit and you're still drinking the statist koolaid about how corporations are somehow the root of all evil. It's truly pathetic.

I'm as much a fan of internet porn as anyone, but I am tired of watching this troll perform wild, sloppy cunnilingus on the corpse of Ayn Rand.

Sensible people have already agreed that a corporation should exist at the mercy of the public. In return for the services they provide the public, corporations are afforded many considerations. Some of them are trying to grab benefits from the public disproportionate with the services they provide to us, and have purchased several legislators to reinforce their position.

They would be wise to exercise some caution with this sort of behavior, as the pendulum tends to swing back the other way eventually.

Most awesome thing I've read today. 9/10 - you lose a point for not using the words "randroid" and "objectigism", okay, a half a point because I just made objectigism up, so 9.5/10. You know what? Fuck it. You worked "cunnilingus" and "the corpse of Ayn Rand" in there, so you get a pass for all eternity. 10 stars and over 9000 internets to you, my good sir or madam.

LOL I see, only "sensible" people believe the private economy exists at the mercy of the state.

I've read all of your posts in this thread, and I don't understand your point of view.It seems to be: Corporations "fucking you in the ass" = liberty and is good. "The state... fucking you in the ass" = tyranny and is bad. What exactly is the advantage of one over the other?

Corporations are composed of people. Governments are composed of people. Society... people. I have issues with the rule-sets that all of these groups operate under currently, but I don't see anything inherent in the concepts behind them that would require this to be the case.

Money(or other gain) driven corruption would not disappear with the elimination of "the state," just as it did not appear with the creation of "the state." Just as you can't legislate ethics, they don't magically appear when laws(backed by the scary, scary, gun-toting government) are removed.

Do corporations really fall under protection of the bill of rights? I thought that was for people...

It is for the people....including the people who actually write the material that is published as the words of Verizon, Inc. That the individuals remain anonymous, hiding behind the identity of the corporation, is permitted by the First Amendment.

The distinction being that when I speak, I speak for myself. Not so the writer you describe above.He is claiming to speak for all shareholders - *whether or not they agree with him*.

If the Verizon shareholders wish to speak, then they are perfectly capable of opening their own mouths.Heck, they can even use the Verizon ISP to do it (and anonymously!).

And what's the point of the distinction?

The point is that the 1st Amendment does not give you the right to speak for me?

Do corporations really fall under protection of the bill of rights? I thought that was for people...

It is for the people....including the people who actually write the material that is published as the words of Verizon, Inc. That the individuals remain anonymous, hiding behind the identity of the corporation, is permitted by the First Amendment.

The distinction being that when I speak, I speak for myself. Not so the writer you describe above.He is claiming to speak for all shareholders - *whether or not they agree with him*.

If the Verizon shareholders wish to speak, then they are perfectly capable of opening their own mouths.Heck, they can even use the Verizon ISP to do it (and anonymously!).

The shareholders (silent partners shielded by law) grant permission to the employees who operate the company including, but not limited to the directors who are supposed to represent the collective will of the shareholders, to make public statements and take action on behalf of the corporation.

To save space - my philosophy on the matter appears to agree with RFT's.

LOL I see, only "sensible" people believe the private economy exists at the mercy of the state. So only doctrinaire statists are "sensible". That's exactly the kind of intellectual "rigor" from the Marxists and their "inevitability of socialism" bullshit. No need to argue, that'd be fighting history.

The reason liberty is dead today is because ethically challenged jerkoffs like you worship the state and fail to see they fuck you in the ass at every turn. The modern state kills and steals as it sees fit and you're still drinking the statist koolaid about how corporations are somehow the root of all evil. It's truly pathetic.

I'm sorry, but Verizon is not very good at analogies. As someone previously posted, they can not be synonymous with newspapers because newspapers are a one-way tool. Not to mention that they are passing more than just the written word on the Internet. I would say that the analogy is closer to the Internet being the roadways in this country and Verizon is but a DMV overseeing a certain portion of the roadways. DMV doesn't make the laws of the road, and they definitely aren't the ones that enforce them. Therefore, I would say that Verizon needs to step back and reassess the situation. They are overstepping their bounds.

I agree that Verizon is really bad at analogies, but I would say that a better analogy would be that an ISP is like a phone company. They provide a service that lets customers select another entity (identified by phone number or IP address), and communicate with that entity. It's none of Verizon's business whether I call my grandmother, or a psychic hotline, and Verizon has no right to exercise "editorial control" over my phone conversations. Likewise, it's none of Verizon's business whether I "call" arstechnica.com or netflix.com, and they have no right to exercise editorial control over those conversations either.

Internet service is just phone service with higher bandwidth and a slightly different addressing scheme. In fact it's not even really an analogy, they're just different technologies providing the same basic service, since you can map either to the other (Internet service over dial-up, or VoIP on a broadband connection).

You would think that Verizon would notice these similarities, since they're clearly aware of the existence of phone companies.

If Verizon feels it's property is being taken perhaps they'd like to return the MASSIVE subsidies they've been given over the last 15-20 years. And if they are concerned about easements maybe they don't need all those little easements they use to run their cables.

Also broadband networks are not broadcast networks... in fact communication (unlike cable TV) is initiated by the END user.

I agree with Verzion. It's Verizon's network, their property, they should set the rules. It's government regulation that allowed these monopolies to form. The answer isn't more regulation, it's more competition that would allow someone to choose a different ISP should Verizon implement restrictive polices.

Please explain how we can have more competition without govt regulation.

The problem is when there is no competition, or very little competition. The free market generally works only when there are many smaller actors and no single entity can control the market. You can't setup a veritable monopoly and then expect it to behave efficiently.

You're 100% right, but it was government regulation that allowed these monopolies to form in the first place. More government regulation will only create new problems or exacerbate existing ones. Open up the market and Verizon would have tough time selling these polices to their customers.

Contrary to legal precedent, corporations are NOT people. They cannot vote. They cannot be drafted into the military. They have no inherent right to Free Speech. Even with their allowance of speech, Free Speech is not absolute. It is regulated even in countries that cherish Free Speech.

I think it's more that Verizon is in the business of helping people (and corporations) communicate with each other and not in the business of communicating.

The rights of corporations involved in communicating, like those that produce TV programs or newspapers, are highly protected.

The situation is almost completely analogous to phone service. AFAIK phone companies are not allowed to control who you can call or be called by

Most of the protocols the internet operates on were originally developed by the government under DARPA. By their very nature they are part of the public commons. The server hardware and the fiber optic cable are Verizon's property. I would argue the protocols by which the Internet functions are similar in function to the public land telephone poles are placed on. Without the public land the pole is placed on it would just be a stick of wood. Without the protocols that make the Initernet function Verizon's hardware would just be a bunch of useless processors. Therefore, just as we have continuing rights to the telecommunications system as part of the commons, we have continuing rights to the Internet as part of the commons.

I wish they would just classify broadband as a utility and be done with all this BS

Exactly. The water company isn't allowed to prioritize water distribution for political/free-speech reasons, neither is the electric company or gas company. Allowing these companies to exert monopolistic control based upon massive barriers to entry, while simultaneously taking advantage of public right of ways... that isn't freedom. It is the exact opposite of freedom. It is the path that leads directly to a feudal society with serfs and lords.

Amazing. I didn't think it was possible to hate ISPs any more than I already did. They proved me wrong. They have declared war on us by plainly stating that they want absolute dictatorial control over what information we have access to. Put simply, they are evil and attempting to do massive harm to our society for purely personal gain. They are attempting to screw everyone over and gain control over our lives.

Yes, it really is that malicious. Think about it. Do you want to give a single corporation absolute control over what you see, hear and read? This is an incredibly serious topic. It isn't just which movie you can conveniently watch. It goes much beyond that. Verizon is seeking absolute control over our access to information. That is the biggest threat to freedom facing the world today.

Unhindered access to all information is freedom. So screw you Verizon, you and your attempt to gain control over what I see, hear and read.

(yeah, i'm pissed)

At first I thought your post might be slightly alarmist... but you do make some really good points and I found myself nodding more and more when I read it a 2nd time. I think it's fairly clear that almost all communication is going to be via the public internet (other than face to face) within a decade or 2. I agree that we CAN NOT allow anyone to censor/interfere with the medium that the majority of all human communication is going to traverse

The problem is when there is no competition, or very little competition. The free market generally works only when there are many smaller actors and no single entity can control the market. You can't setup a veritable monopoly and then expect it to behave efficiently.

You're 100% right, but it was government regulation that allowed these monopolies to form in the first place. More government regulation will only create new problems or exacerbate existing ones. Open up the market and Verizon would have tough time selling these polices to their customers.

There's a lot more to it than the simplistic views you're stating. They have taken massive amounts of money from the government to build out their networks - but didn't live up to their end of the bargin. Then lets toss in the cost of entry. Toss on to that one of the reasons electricty is a regulated utility - take a look at pictures circa 1900-1920's of New York City and the overwhelming and dangersous amounts of cables and wires running.

Then take into accuont that they only have a licsense to use the publics (private citizens) airwaves for cellualr and wireless communication. If that wasn't required then it would become who could pump out the most power and drown out the competition and/or safety concerns because they could interfer with emergency, aerotech or location systems.

Or how about that in order for a free market to actually work it would have to include ethics and ethical behavior. Don't see that a lot from modern mega corporations.

Regulation isn't evil. They may need to be modernized but they're very important in order to keep the market working towards the good of the nation and not just the owners of a company.

I pretty much agree with you.... unfortunately the main problem we have now is that wealth is extremely concentrated and the government is very corrupt. Many regulators are simply yes men who go to bat for the very people they are supposed to be the watchdogs on instead of representing the people's interest.

Due to citizen's united I don't see how we can remove this horrid corruption until we get rid of either scalia or thomas

For real? Its not Verizons network its YOUR network. Our tax dollars paid for that network.

You are correct, your tax dollars paid for the network. However our government screwed us because it's still their private property.

Esoterix wrote:

A lot of times ISP's actually make money from building networks (especially cable broadband) because of tax breaks, low contract bids, and raising rates with out building better infrastructure. Our tax dollars even paid for the military research to make the internet even possible. But since Verizon runs the pipes you and the rest of us essential paid for they "Own" it?

Yes they were given subsides and grants to build THEIR network, not a network FOR us. This was done by our government, it screwed us.

Esoterix wrote:

With out rules it doesn't matter how much competition there is out there, they will all try to screw you ...

I don't get this, you implicitly acknowledge the rules have been rigged against us. Yet you argue for more rules... The only way to get more competition is stop these polices that fostered this monopoly in the first place.

I don't think you are familiar with well established case law. The government absolutely can break up companies under the sherman anti-trust act There is no legal debate about this.... and breaking up a company is a much more drastic step than simple regulation.

A simple solution is to forcibly separate the ISP and infrastructure businesses (as is done in much of europe) where one company lays the cable and many companies offer service over it

Just to step in here since a lot of libertarian ideals are being misrepresented, free market ideals are supposed to be accompanied by transparent accounting and other ideals that account for human behavior. Also it's important to realize that (for some reason johnny-come-lately libs forget this) monopolistic behavior is just as contrary to capitalism as socialism and all the other stuff we rail against. We shouldn't be in a rush to defend this out of a sense of anti-liberal soapboxing.

That's a good point...... what's interesting is that me and quite a few other people I know are both libretarian AND liberal. Keep in mind that it's possible to be both.\Unless you are an absolutist most libretarians believe that some govt regulation is necessary... and in fact can be a good thing especially when it can INCREASE the freedom of citizens.

If Broadband were regulated so that users had more choices and lower prices it would be a net gain for freedom

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.